Why Accept Joseph Smith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MrZetterlund
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ParkerD (corrected from Dianaiad) - Well, I would bet my bottom dollar most people would choose intimate relations with people of their choice over killing their child anyday if both were pleasing to God. And not because of sinfulness, but if given the choice of hanky-panky over killing I think it’s a no-brainer.

Really, D, you can’t expect me or anyone else to think that in his plural marriages JS was changing diapers and tending to the emotional needs of his wives. I’m sure some men in plural marriages did/do that, however, from what I am hearing JS was a very busy man.
If he was starting business ventures, moving people from state to state, etc. and died at a young age, my guess is that he didn’t have much time for family life.
Lax16,
I think it’s a “no-brainer” in the opposite direction than what you suggest. The pertinent question becomes, “did Abraham really and truly think God had the power to resurrect his son Isaac, and have faith that he was being asked to do something by God that did not make logical sense and that he was willing to do it?”

Physical “intimate relations” is a tiny part of marriage. The issues involved in marriage and raising children together and being mutually supportive are far more complex than the kind of “intimate relations” you implied. Note also that Joseph Smith had no children by a plural marriage relationship, at all (though Brigham Young did much later).

You evidently haven’t read much about Joseph Smith’s life to assume he had no time for family life. He made time for family life, was very much involved with his children, and passionately involved with Emma and being a support to her even in the midst of doing all that he did.
And, no I do not ask questions in jest. I have learned from you to get the offical LDS teaching/opinion on things before forming my opinions. There is so much reference to the OT to support LDS teachings, that I am truly surprised. I rarely look to the OT to support Christianity (except in fulfillment) so I will always ask for clarification on the LDS view of “covenants” etc.
Was JS asked to engage in any other “difficult” tests of faith?
I would say that “yes”, he was. You can read about his having to spend four months in a dungeon in Liberty, Missouri with horrible conditions and horrible food and knowing his family was in oppressive conditions also (not in a dungeon, but having been greatly mistreated and suffering the ravages of winter), yet being able in the end to write some of the most beautiful prose in letters from that “Liberty Jail” that have ever been penned, in my opinion. He wrote from a position of great suffering, but praised God while yet questioning “where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?”
You say JS loved his wife Emma very much - and maybe he did. But why would God want any woman to have to witness her husband literally having “a romp in the hay?” If you said God was testing the faith (and patience) of Emma Smith, not Joseph, I might agree with you.
Usually tests of faith are difficult not pleasurable.
I would not say that the circumstance you mentioned is evidence that God wanted Emma to “witness” such, if it really happened which could be a rumor anyway as to its details. However, I really did mean that it was a test of other people’s faith, and certainly a test of Emma’s faith. She had a completely unique role in that she was the wife of a man who testified he was a prophet of God. There is no question that her faith would be sorely tested under the knowledge that any such belief as “plural marriage” was a commandment from God for her husband–also of course the aspect of a test of faith in trying to reconcile with women who had been “sealed” to her husband and she knowing that this had happened.
Can you provide any examples from the OT/NT that would show God asking anyone else in the span of several thousands of years to engage in similar “tests of faith?”
Besides the Abrahamic test, one can find examples of various faith tests.

It would have taken great faith for the people who saw the change happen to Paul (from being Saul), to accept that he ended up having a significant leadership role after having been such a persecutor of the members of the church–especially for him to be selected as an apostle.

It took great faith for Noah to spend years building an ark when everyone thought it was a ridiculous thing he was doing.

It took faith for Jacob to not walk away from the deviously schemed “I didn’t choose her” marriage to Leah after seven years of hard work, and instead to go ahead and accept his covenant marriage to her and work seven more years for his covenant marriage to Rachel.

These are examples of doing something as a test of faith that did not make logical sense given the circumstances, and required exercising faith in God and in His promises and in making covenants with God that secure the faith and show its vitality in a person’s life.
 
To summarize: after years of persecution by mobs, the mormons decided to act against an antimormon paper in their midst.

We need to remember that the mormons of nauvoo were just a little nervous of this newspaper. It was not just a mayor and town council affair. The mormon community was also concerned that mobs would enter Nauvoo and the destruction of mormon private property would begin all over again.
So, apparently, for LDS, if you get nervous, you have the right to go destroy what makes you nervous
 
So, apparently, for LDS, if you get nervous, you have the right to go destroy what makes you nervous
Atticus,
To assume that freedom of the press means that a newspaper or newsletter being sent to a widespread audience and being given to other newspapers to spread the same message, wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children, is to assume an erroneous belief about the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was never intended to mean to allow for encouraging the killing of innocent people through public media. I would think any student of United States history and constitutional law would understand that.
 
Atticus,
To assume that freedom of the press means that a newspaper or newsletter being sent to a widespread audience and being given to other newspapers to spread the same message, wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children, is to assume an erroneous belief about the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was never intended to mean to allow for encouraging the killing of innocent people through public media. I would think any student of United States history and constitutional law would understand that.
But it still leaves the question of people taking the law into their own hands…
 
Where in scriptures, do we see the Apostles defending themselves, after Christ spoke that he who lived by the sword shall die by the sword?

As I explained in my other post, they had just come from the Passover meal…
And the sword used to cut off the ear of the soldier was used for spreading butter.
 
And the sword used to cut off the ear of the soldier was used for spreading butter.
DId they have armor, spears and swords such as the soldiers?

Look up the translation of the ‘sword’. They had just come from the Passover and the sacrificial knife was the same word used as sword.
 
DId they have armor, spears and swords such as the soldiers?

Look up the translation of the ‘sword’. They had just come from the Passover and the sacrificial knife was the same word used as sword.
Sorry. Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said the disciples were soldiers. Soldiers wear armor.

As for the sword, the same Latin gladium (and gladius) is used in John 18:10, Eph. 6:17; Gen. 3:24, Judg. 7:20, 2 Sam. 12:10, Jer. 15:2, Matt. 10:34, Luke 2:35, Rom. 13:4.
 
Lax16,
I think it’s a “no-brainer” in the opposite direction than what you suggest. The pertinent question becomes, “did Abraham really and truly think God had the power to resurrect his son Isaac, and have faith that he was being asked to do something by God that did not make logical sense and that he was willing to do it?”

Physical “intimate relations” is a tiny part of marriage. The issues involved in marriage and raising children together and being mutually supportive are far more complex than the kind of “intimate relations” you implied. Note also that Joseph Smith had no children by a plural marriage relationship, at all (though Brigham Young did much later).

You evidently haven’t read much about Joseph Smith’s life to assume he had no time for family life. He made time for family life, was very much involved with his children, and passionately involved with Emma and being a support to her even in the midst of doing all that he did.

I would say that “yes”, he was. You can read about his having to spend four months in a dungeon in Liberty, Missouri with horrible conditions and horrible food and knowing his family was in oppressive conditions also (not in a dungeon, but having been greatly mistreated and suffering the ravages of winter), yet being able in the end to write some of the most beautiful prose in letters from that “Liberty Jail” that have ever been penned, in my opinion. He wrote from a position of great suffering, but praised God while yet questioning “where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?”

I would not say that the circumstance you mentioned is evidence that God wanted Emma to “witness” such, if it really happened which could be a rumor anyway as to its details. However, I really did mean that it was a test of other people’s faith, and certainly a test of Emma’s faith. She had a completely unique role in that she was the wife of a man who testified he was a prophet of God. There is no question that her faith would be sorely tested under the knowledge that any such belief as “plural marriage” was a commandment from God for her husband–also of course the aspect of a test of faith in trying to reconcile with women who had been “sealed” to her husband and she knowing that this had happened.

Besides the Abrahamic test, one can find examples of various faith tests.

It would have taken great faith for the people who saw the change happen to Paul (from being Saul), to accept that he ended up having a significant leadership role after having been such a persecutor of the members of the church–especially for him to be selected as an apostle.

It took great faith for Noah to spend years building an ark when everyone thought it was a ridiculous thing he was doing.

It took faith for Jacob to not walk away from the deviously schemed “I didn’t choose her” marriage to Leah after seven years of hard work, and instead to go ahead and accept his covenant marriage to her and work seven more years for his covenant marriage to Rachel.

These are examples of doing something as a test of faith that did not make logical sense given the circumstances, and required exercising faith in God and in His promises and in making covenants with God that secure the faith and show its vitality in a person’s life.
ParkerD- You are very generous when discussing the life of Joseph Smith. I would like to talk about God.

God, our Father, spoke to Moses and gave to the people of Israel the 10 Commandments. The Law of Moses, which is the moral foundation for Judaism and Christianity, COMMANDS that one shall not commit adultry nor covet thy neighor’s wife.

Because you often quote the OT, I will assume that you believe in the God of the Old Testament. Catholics believe that God is unchanging. He is consistent. There is no contradiction in His Word. He has never, nor will He ever, ask a person to go against the Law of Moses.

You provided examples from the Bible showing how God tested the faith of some. NEVER did God ask anyone of them to sin against Him and His Commandments.

By telling me, and the world, that God asked Joseph Smith to commit adultry, would mean that God changed and was ignoring His own commandments. This means, He is no longer the God of the Old Testament. And, therefore, not the God of the New Testament.

Please explain why God would would do this?
Tell me, WHEN and WHY did God change?
Do you have evidence, other than JS’s revelation and words, that God is a “changing God?”

Thanks!
 
Well, folks killed Mormons, so the Mormons killed folks. Makes perfect sense.
You open a dangerous door with thoughts like that. Gay people hold Mormon and Christian beliefs as persecution against them. Would it be justified for them to start burning our Churches now?
 
Sorry. Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said the disciples were soldiers. Soldiers wear armor.
I didn’t say the disciples were soldiers, neither were they armed as such. The ‘sword’ they carried was nothing compared to the military sword.

Why not try it like this. He who lives by violence shall perish by violence…
 
Sorry. Maybe you misunderstood me. I never said the disciples were soldiers. Soldiers wear armor.
**Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. And the name of thee servant was Malchus.

(IGNT+) σιμωνG4613 SIMON ουνG3767 THEREFORE πετροςG4074 PETER εχωνG2192 [G5723] HAVING μαχαιρανG3162 A SWORD, ειλκυσενG1670 [G5656] DREW αυτηνG846 IT, καιG2532 AND επαισενG3817 [G5656] SMOTE τονG3588 THE τουG3588 OF THE αρχιερεωςG749 HIGH PRIEST δουλονG1401 BONDMAN, καιG2532 AND απεκοψενG609 [G5656] CUT OFF αυτουG846 τοG3588 HIS ωτιονG5621 τοG3588 EAR δεξιονG1188 RIGHT. ηνG2258 [G5713] δεG1161 AND WAS ονομαG3686 NAME τωG3588 THE δουλωG1401 BONDMAN’S μαλχοςG3124 MALCHUS.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh’-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Rev 19:21 And the rest were slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon the horse, which proceedeth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

(IGNT+) καιG2532 AND οιG3588 THE λοιποιG3062 REST απεκτανθησανG615 [G5681] WERE KILLED ενG1722 WITH τηG3588 THE ρομφαιαG4501 SWORD τουG3588 OF HIM WHO καθημενουG2521 [G5740] SITS επιG1909 ON τουG3588 THE ιππουG2462 HORSE, “THE SWORD” τηG3588 WHICH εκπορευομενηG1607 [G5740][GOES FORTH εκG1537 OUT OF τουG3588 στοματοςG4750 αυτουG846 HIS MOUTH; καιG2532 AND πανταG3956 ALL ταG3588 THE ορνεαG3732 BIRDS εχορτασθησανG5526 [G5681] WERE FILLED εκG1537 WITH τωνG3588 σαρκωνG4561 αυτωνG846 THEIR FLESH.

G4501
ῥομφαία
rhomphaia
hrom-fah’-yah
Probably of foreign origin; a sabre, that is, a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively): - sword.**
 
**Joh 18:10 Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the servant of the high priest and cut off his right ear. And the name of thee servant was Malchus.

(IGNT+) σιμωνG4613 SIMON ουνG3767 THEREFORE πετροςG4074 PETER εχωνG2192 [G5723] HAVING μαχαιρανG3162 A SWORD, ειλκυσενG1670 [G5656] DREW αυτηνG846 IT, καιG2532 AND επαισενG3817 [G5656] SMOTE τονG3588 THE τουG3588 OF THE αρχιερεωςG749 HIGH PRIEST δουλονG1401 BONDMAN, καιG2532 AND απεκοψενG609 [G5656] CUT OFF αυτουG846 τοG3588 HIS ωτιονG5621 τοG3588 EAR δεξιονG1188 RIGHT. ηνG2258 [G5713] δεG1161 AND WAS ονομαG3686 NAME τωG3588 THE δουλωG1401 BONDMAN’S μαλχοςG3124 MALCHUS.

G3162
μάχαιρα
machaira
makh’-ahee-rah
Probably feminine of a presumed derivative of G3163; a knife, that is, dirk; figuratively war, judicial punishment: - sword.

Rev 19:21 And the rest were slain by the sword of him that sitteth upon the horse, which proceedeth out of his mouth: and all the birds were filled with their flesh.

(IGNT+) καιG2532 AND οιG3588 THE λοιποιG3062 REST απεκτανθησανG615 [G5681] WERE KILLED ενG1722 WITH τηG3588 THE ρομφαιαG4501 SWORD τουG3588 OF HIM WHO καθημενουG2521 [G5740] SITS επιG1909 ON τουG3588 THE ιππουG2462 HORSE, “THE SWORD” τηG3588 WHICH εκπορευομενηG1607 [G5740][GOES FORTH εκG1537 OUT OF τουG3588 στοματοςG4750 αυτουG846 HIS MOUTH; καιG2532 AND πανταG3956 ALL ταG3588 THE ορνεαG3732 BIRDS εχορτασθησανG5526 [G5681] WERE FILLED εκG1537 WITH τωνG3588 σαρκωνG4561 αυτωνG846 THEIR FLESH.

G4501
ῥομφαία
rhomphaia
hrom-fah’-yah
Probably of foreign origin; a sabre, that is, a long and broad cutlass (any weapon of the kind, literally or figuratively): - sword.**
No matter which way you want to try to cut this, a sword is an offensive weapon. Dirk-small sword, short sword. (Still used in combat). Cutlass-long sword. (still used in combat).

I’m pretty sure when Jesus rebuked Peter, he didn’t say, “Those who live by the butter knife shall die by the butter knife” (although a cardiologist might). In the book of John, we see the disciples still have not developed the faith in Christ, that they do after the resurrection.
 
You open a dangerous door with thoughts like that. Gay people hold Mormon and Christian beliefs as persecution against them. Would it be justified for them to start burning our Churches now?
Sorry. I forgot to include my sarcastic emote.

:rolleyes:
 
No matter which way you want to try to cut this, a sword is an offensive weapon. Dirk-small sword, short sword. (Still used in combat). Cutlass-long sword. (still used in combat).

I’m pretty sure when Jesus rebuked Peter, he didn’t say, “Those who live by the butter knife shall die by the butter knife” (although a cardiologist might). In the book of John, we see the disciples still have not developed the faith in Christ, that they do after the resurrection.
He who lives by violence, shall perish by violence…

It appears you take this literal, which makes me wonder how you received the message, ‘This is my body…’?
 
No matter which way you want to try to cut this, a sword is an offensive weapon. Dirk-small sword, short sword. (Still used in combat). Cutlass-long sword. (still used in combat).

I’m pretty sure when Jesus rebuked Peter, he didn’t say, “Those who live by the butter knife shall die by the butter knife” (although a cardiologist might). In the book of John, we see the disciples still have not developed the faith in Christ, that they do after the resurrection.
Maybe we should take this discussion to another thread.

While you now term ‘butter knife’ you have failed to respond to the possibility of a ‘sacrificial knife’ used to prepare for the Passover…
 
He who lives by violence, shall perish by violence…

It appears you take this literal, which makes me wonder how you received the message, ‘This is my body…’?
I am not denying that Christ is talking about violence. I am saying at the moment in question, he was referring to the violent instrument in Peter’s hand.
 
Maybe we should take this discussion to another thread.

While you now term ‘butter knife’ you have failed to respond to the possibility of a ‘sacrificial knife’ used to prepare for the Passover…
Nah. A sword is a sword. Whether I can cut an ear off with it or cut a loaf of bread, it makes no difference. The argument is rather pointless.
 
Atticus,
To assume that freedom of the press means that a newspaper or newsletter being sent to a widespread audience and being given to other newspapers to spread the same message, wherein the message is to foster, comply with and sustain and support the killing of innocent people including children, is to assume an erroneous belief about the freedom of the press. Freedom of the press was never intended to mean to allow for encouraging the killing of innocent people through public media. I would think any student of United States history and constitutional law would understand that.
Please provide a quote from the Expositor that backs up what I put in bold. It is available online, here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top